From: Kaitao Cheng <kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@gentwo.org>,
Uladzislau Rezki <urezki@gmail.com>,
Pedro Falcato <pfalcato@suse.de>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc: muchun.song@linux.dev, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/percpu: Avoid IO/FS reclaim in backing allocations
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2026 19:31:01 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260604113101.89510-4-kaitao.cheng@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260604113101.89510-1-kaitao.cheng@linux.dev>
From: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
Commit 9a5b183941b5 ("mm, percpu: do not consider sleepable
allocations atomic") allows sleepable GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS percpu
allocations to take pcpu_alloc_mutex. This avoids premature allocation
failures, but it also makes the mutex visible to callers from constrained
IO/FS contexts.
Thread A calls pcpu_alloc_noprof() with GFP_KERNEL and takes
pcpu_alloc_mutex. Since the internal allocation is not constrained by
NOFS, it may enter FS reclaim while still holding pcpu_alloc_mutex,
creating a dependency like: pcpu_alloc_mutex -> fs_reclaim -> FS lock
At the same time, Thread B may already hold an FS lock and then call
pcpu_alloc_noprof() with GFP_NOFS. It will try to acquire
pcpu_alloc_mutex and block, creating the reverse dependency:
FS lock -> pcpu_alloc_mutex
This can still form a potential deadlock cycle.
Avoid the dependency by restricting percpu backing allocations to GFP_NOIO.
The public allocation still uses the caller's GFP context to decide whether
it may block, but the internal memory allocations performed while
pcpu_alloc_mutex is held cannot recurse into IO or FS reclaim.
Fixes: 9a5b183941b5 ("mm, percpu: do not consider sleepable allocations atomic")
Signed-off-by: Kaitao Cheng <chengkaitao@kylinos.cn>
---
mm/percpu.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/percpu.c b/mm/percpu.c
index 4d89965cba16..e6f449323064 100644
--- a/mm/percpu.c
+++ b/mm/percpu.c
@@ -1726,9 +1726,8 @@ static void pcpu_alloc_tag_free_hook(struct pcpu_chunk *chunk, int off, size_t s
* @gfp: allocation flags
*
* Allocate percpu area of @size bytes aligned at @align. If @gfp doesn't
- * contain %GFP_KERNEL, the allocation is atomic. If @gfp has __GFP_NOWARN
- * then no warning will be triggered on invalid or failed allocation
- * requests.
+ * allow blocking, the allocation is atomic. If @gfp has __GFP_NOWARN then no
+ * warning will be triggered on invalid or failed allocation requests.
*
* RETURNS:
* Percpu pointer to the allocated area on success, NULL on failure.
@@ -1749,8 +1748,14 @@ void __percpu *pcpu_alloc_noprof(size_t size, size_t align, bool reserved,
size_t bits, bit_align;
gfp = current_gfp_context(gfp);
- /* whitelisted flags that can be passed to the backing allocators */
- pcpu_gfp = gfp & (GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN);
+ /*
+ * Whitelisted flags that can be passed to the backing allocators.
+ * Backing allocations under pcpu_alloc_mutex must not recurse into
+ * IO/FS reclaim. Otherwise a GFP_KERNEL caller holding the mutex can
+ * block on reclaim while a GFP_NOIO/NOFS caller holding an IO/FS lock
+ * waits for the same mutex.
+ */
+ pcpu_gfp = gfp & (GFP_NOIO | __GFP_NORETRY | __GFP_NOWARN);
is_atomic = !gfpflags_allow_blocking(gfp);
do_warn = !(gfp & __GFP_NOWARN);
--
2.43.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-04 11:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-04 11:30 [PATCH v2 0/3] mm/percpu: Fix possible NOFS/NOIO reclaim recursion Kaitao Cheng
2026-06-04 11:30 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] mm/vmalloc: honor GFP constraints in pcpu_get_vm_areas() Kaitao Cheng
2026-06-04 16:49 ` Uladzislau Rezki
2026-06-04 11:31 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] mm/percpu: honor GFP constraints when populating chunks Kaitao Cheng
2026-06-04 11:31 ` Kaitao Cheng [this message]
2026-06-04 19:07 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] mm/percpu: Avoid IO/FS reclaim in backing allocations Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260604113101.89510-4-kaitao.cheng@linux.dev \
--to=kaitao.cheng@linux.dev \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chengkaitao@kylinos.cn \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=dennis@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=muchun.song@linux.dev \
--cc=pfalcato@suse.de \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=urezki@gmail.com \
--cc=vbabka@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox